Another Electoral Finance Act problem
Bill English has raised another problem with the Electoral Finance Act – probably because it was rushed through so quickly.
It relates to the address one has to put on election advertisements. The requirement for third parties is that their financial agent list their home address on all their adverts. Now I have no problem with this (and in fact my home address is on the FSC billboards) as a third party can be hard to track down – we saw the Brethren being less than upfront with the addresses they listed.
But in a fit of stupidity they have also required every single candidate and party financial agent to list their home address on every advertisement. Now this is ridicolous and serves no good purpose. Parties and candidates are known accountable public figures.
In the last election the National Party adverts listed the office block the party HQ is in. They have been there for around 20 years so are hardly a fly by night outfit.
Now instead of listing the party’s registered physical address, every advert has to list the home address of the party’s financial agent or party secretary if none appointed.
Not many would be overly keen to have their home address on every single newspaper ad, pamphlet, leaflet, TV ad, radio ad and billboard up and down the country. And the sad experience of those of us in politics is people will ring or pop in without warning if your address is highly publicised.
As I said, there is absolutely no public policy reason why party advertisements should not be able to use the registered office of the party, instead of the financial agent’s home address. But the law as written doesn’t allow this. It should be changed.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:25 am
This requirement for home addresses foe EFA purposes and for company directors has serious privacy implications. UK goes one step further and requires company directors to publicise their dates of birth which leaves them wide open to identity fraud.
Perhaps home addresses may be appropriate for the likes of the former McGillycuddly Party since they did not seemed to have an office and they held their AGM’s in a back country tramping hut (these for some reason do not seem to have postal addresses).
February 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
DPF: But the law as written doesn’t allow this. It should be changed.
Not so fast DPF. John Key might have a different idea and flip flop on another National policy idea. To become PM he actually might have to endorse the EFB and promise he won’t change a single thing.
And who would find fault with him? It’s a noble goal to desire to become PM. And convincing the electorate that some ideas are better than others is such hard work.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I’ll put my details on my placard/banner.
Is a font size of 1 point printed at 1200dpi legible under a magnifying glass?
February 8th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Okay, maybe I understood the EFB slightly better than some others, but this change was very much telegraphed. It’s not that it was hurried, just no-one seemed to care.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:32 am
At least you understand and express the intent of the EFB Graeme. DPF just issues a proclemation to the great unwashed and the leemings head for the cliff.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Graeme you said
“..It’s not that it was hurried, just no-one seemed to care.”
I think, as you probably also do, that it was a “intended” that the home address of all ‘perpetrators’ be on all offending banners just to keep the apprehension level up. (pun intended)
February 8th, 2008 at 8:54 am
John Dalley: DPF just issues a proclemation to the great unwashed and the leemings head for the cliff.
So, what are your thoughts on the issue at hand apart from throwing all manners of insults and accusations around? Do you believe it is right to force everyone who wishes to speak their mind to publish their home address, leaving them open for any form of retribution?
Do you remember Millsy, the self described Left Wing Nutter who threatened everyone with violence – “Blood on the streets” if National were elected? Would you want to have your home address published so D4J could come visit you and the people you love one night?
There are a lot of crazies out there. Requiring your home address is a dangerous thing. I’ve been against it from the beginning, noticed it, but it’s not as if the Labour government listened
They needed to protect their interests and ensure that the election was fought on their terms.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
It is simply laziness on the part of the state if you ask me (which nobody did of course). It saves the state stormtroopers from actually having to track down where you live before they come and kick in your doors. All thay have to do is check the official dissenters database…
February 8th, 2008 at 10:05 am
It looks as if the Greens have a problem now as well:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0802/S00081.htm
February 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I guess one upside of political candidates being required to publish their home address details is that sharpens the mind before launching into attacks on citizens under parliamentary privilege.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
When did this come back?
http://www.dontvotelabour.net/
(Is it now registered, and if so, where is the residential address etc…?) – we can’t make it too difficult for the state stormtroopers to find you now can we…
February 8th, 2008 at 10:51 am
What is the purpose for having the address publicly displayed? Why do the public need to know?
Surely if addresses must be disclosed why not have them disclosed to the electoral commissioner and then have the provisions of the privacy act imposed.
Disclosing addresses for some socialists might just be be very embarassing when it is publicy known that they are actually “rich pricks” and conversely some poor conservatives may be greatly embarrassed when the ordinary people realise that they are not actually rich and well heeled.
What a funny world that we live in.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
And where do you live John Dalley ? I’m sure you would enjoy a visit from some lemmings and heaven forbid we could throw in some unwashed just to keep you happy.
The whole EFB is a socialist crock of shit, it’s defenders are either feeble minded or just plainly corrupt.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hopefully this legal requirement will have distasteful repercussions for some third parties on the Left.
Of course, like “Hate Speech” laws, the socialists will do their darndest to frame them so that they only ping people on the “right”.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Worse than that, DPF. As I mentioned on another thread on this topic I was attacked in my home as were my elderly parents, while my children hid under the table, because two nutters got hold of my home address during an election campaign (they believed Winston was in league with the Masonic Lodge… which come to think of it is probably the most rational explanation I’ve heard for some of his behaviour, but still…)
This exposes people to danger of actual harm, and worse. ACC aside, I hope the first person to suffer as a result a) isn’t too badly hurt and b) puts in a huge compo claim to ACC for the mental anguish, injury etc.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
You think that is ill Rex how about this:
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/02/epa-used-to-arrest-blogger.html
February 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
SSB. Why don’t you look in the phone book, it’s not difficult to find.
So nice to see that you post under your real name. Not!
What are you afraid off?
February 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
When the EFB stirs up so much comment on the right, then i know the Govt is on the right track.
I have an issue with elections having the potental to be bought, by any political party.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:06 am
read this then John
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/02/big-money-in-new-zealand-politics.html
February 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Why is big money so associated with the “Free Market” end of the political spectrum? The reality is, contrary to the claims of Socialist types, that THEIR political causes get the most funding by far. Maybe NZ’s Socialists haven’t worked this out yet, or maybe it suits them for us not to know.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
No, it is not that at all. If Some people realised how much they are being taken for a ride by vested interests, simply because they have been suckered into believing their ‘brand’ is better, they would choke on their cornflakes. The left/right debate is just a grown-up version of ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ or aome other childrens’ fantasy. It is only when they take their thumbs out of their mouths and actually start to analyse the world around them that they realise they have been taken for a ride. Until then, they continue with ‘Labour-good/National -Bad’ and keep putting Key up there swith ‘The Big Bad Wolf’…. ooooh scarey!!
February 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
This is where Dalley’s comment about lemmings is particularly appropriate. The criteria for an ‘election advertisement’ is actually quite narrow and is a long way from representing everyone who wishes to speak their mind
As follows from the EFA:
5 Meaning of election advertisement
(1) In this Act, election advertisement-
(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:
(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:
(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated).
I accept that there might be difficulties in the interpretation of 5 a) (ii) and many well established 3rd parties represent political views that overlap those of a party or candidate. These well established 3rd parties all likely have publicly known addresses anyway and their greatest concern with the EFA are the spending caps. The chances of the address restriction affecting Joe Average’s expression of free speech are minimal. There will always be http://www.dontvotelabour.net types who publicly flout the law as an expression of youthful ant-establishmentarianism.
It is good, however, to see that the hysteria has died down and the punter in chief at kiwiblog seems to have accepted the fact that the EFA is just another boring piece of western democratic legislation with no super-draconian properties or potions that are going to turn us into toads overnight.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I have an issue with elections having the potental to be bought, by any political party.
As do I – which is why 3rd parties should be able to spend the same as the Government departments promoting Government [sic] policies.
Can’t wait until we see the ad’s this year promoting the 2% – 4% employer contribution “brought to you by Labour”….